Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The UK Kill List
Completely fucking with the long established right to a defence if charged with a crime, the UK government's "kill list" jumps straight to guilty and allows politicians and faceless Mandarins to render a verdict of death - a punishment that remains unlawful in the UK.

The following lengthy paper is from Reprieve:



"The sovereign who makes use ofsuch execrable meansshould be regarded as an enemyof the human race."
de Vattel (1758)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 5

    HUMAN RIGHTS MAY BE TOO NARROWLY FOCUSED.......................................7
  3. THE FIRST 21ST CENTURY UK KILL LIST: JPEL IN AFGHANISTAN ANDPAKISTAN.........................................................................................................................12A. A Brief introduction to the JPEL List ................................................13B. how the JPEL KiLL List operAtes..........................................................13


JPEL Restrictions To Kill Or Not to Kill?...............................14
JPEL Objectives (Targets) Are Chosen Utilising The SameHighly Unreliable Methods Once Used To Place So Many InnocentPeople In Guantánamo Bay.........................................................14
There Is Uncontroverted Proof That There Are JPEL Targets InPakistan, A Country That Has Never Been Even Arguably A WarZone.............................................................................................18

c. the evidence of how JPEL operAtions Are executed refLects thAt,inevitABLy, MistAKes Are Being MAde And onLy through trAnspArencycAn this Be fuLLy evALuAted..................................................................19
IV. MERGING THE "WAR ON TERROR" WITH THE "WAR ON DRUGS": THEEXTRAORDINARY DECISION TO INCLUDE DRUG TRAFFICKERS ON THEJPEL KILL LIST..............................................................................................................20

  1. the united stAtes historicALLy confLAted the "wAr on drugs" withterrorisM Long Before 9/11...................................................................21
  2. vArious Agencies with A vested interest in Merging the "wAr onterror" with the "wAr on drugs" pressed to view BAttLingnArcotics As integrAL to fighting terrorisM on the theory thAtnArcotics profits were supporting terror...........................................22
    1. Those who wish to merge the "War on Terror" with the "War on
      Drugs" point to a mainly ctional overlap between narcotics and
      Islamic Terrorism.........................................................................23
    2. Those determined to promote a joint "War on Terror and Drugs"
      rely on a long-fostered and established American fear of
      the impact of Drugs.....................................................................25

c. the us And the uK hAve for over ten yeArs ALreAdy BeentArgeting nArcotics deALers under the pretext thAt theyfinAnciALLy support the tALiBAn............................................................28

Reprieve, April 2016



The British were the rst to suggest that the "War on Terror"should be used as an opportunity to re- ght the "War on Drugs"in Afghanistan and Pakistan........................................................28The basis for including Narco-Traf ckers on the JPEL Kill
List was an inaccurate suggestion that Narcotics was the primarysource of funding for Islamic extremism....................................30



  1. the evidence of cLose cooperAtion Between the British And theAMericAns in identifying And tArgeting those on the JpeL List.......32
  2. cLose worK Between the uK And the Asnf ALso resuLts inexecutions of tArgets on the JpeL KiLL List.....................................34
c. specific evidence thAt the uK hAs Been invoLved in KiLLoperAtions.................................................................................................35

    1. circuMstAntiAL evidence thAt MAy Be derived froM the JpeLoperAtions And oBJectives (tArgets) nAMes.........................................37
    2. vArious words refLect the dehuMAnisAtion of the peopLe on theJPEL List.................................................................................................47

  4. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................56

Reprieve, April 2016 4


On September 7th, 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron came to Parliament and announced a "newdeparture" for Britain, a policy of killing individuals the Security Services and the military do notlike, people placed on a list of individuals who the UK (acting along with the US and others) haveidenti ed and systematically plan to kill. The mere admission that there is a Kill List certainlyshould, indeed, have been a "departure" for a country that prides itself on decency. Unfortunately, itwas not a "new departure" at all, as we had been doing it secretly for more than a decade.
Predictably, the Prime Minister chose a deeply unpopular gure Reyaad Khan, a deranged Britishman who had boasted on YouTube of his involvement in ISIS horrors as the rst admitted target ofthis policy. (History teaches us that it has always been easiest for advocates of the death penalty tosell their case to some by highlighting the face of a serial killer who is captured on lm committinghis atrocities.)
But bad cases make bad law, and bad policy. And when the wider facts come to light, sober mindsmay pause.
If there is one lesson we should have learned in the American-led "Global War on Terror", declaredby President George W. Bush in response to 9/11, it is this: It is dangerous to jettison decadesof gradual evolution of human rights and the rule of law in the heat of the emotional moment.Detention without trial in Guantanámo Bay, and torture in Abu Ghraib, were recruiting sergeantsfor extremism. Rendition (a euphemism for kidnapping) drained away goodwill. Droning villagesin Pakistan's tribal areas turned the United States into the region's most hated nation. And theninvading Iraq without a UN resolution helped to create chaos in the Middle East.
Lacking any transparency, so much of the of cial justi cation of these dreadful policies wasessentially propaganda. The detainees in Guantanámo Bay were not the "worst of the worst"terrorists in the world, as promised by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: it took severalyears, but when lawyers eventually reached the prison base, more then 9-in-10 were cleared as "nothreat to the US or its allies." Far from the marvellously precise killing machines that were loudlyadvertised by their proponents, the drones in Pakistan killed an average of nine innocent childrenfor each "High Value Target" singled out for death.
Every time the US has encouraged the world to renounce our basic principles and the UK hasfollowed our hypocrisy has served as the yeast that fomented further radicalism.
In this Report, we consider the Prime Minister's claim that the UK had only just come up with theidea of a terrorist Kill List. First, we now know he deceived Parliament, and the people. Revelationsjust last week by VICE, following up on a case originally investigated by Reprieve, demonstratethat the UK was deeply involved in a Kill List in Yemen, notwithstanding repeated British denials.But the Yemen Kill List was not the rst time the British government dabbled in Twenty-FirstCentury Assassination: today, we reveal shocking and even more disturbing contours of the rstiteration of the British Kill List.
To set it in context, we must consider the evolution in law and morality concerning assassination:what was good enough for the Borgias in the late Middle Ages had already been condemned by theSeventeenth Century as barbaric. Indeed, even in World War Two, with the very existence of thenation under threat, the British eschewed assassinations as unwise as well as immoral: the one timethe British did conspire to assassinate an individual Nazi (Reinhard Heydrich) the reprisals werehorri c, and he was replaced in post by someone even worse. We should pause for re ection before

Reprieve, April 2016 5


we take a course in the "War on Terror" that we rejected when threatened with total destruction inWorld War Two.
This Report demonstrates that Britain conspired in a US-inspired Kill List soon after 9/11. Startingin 2002, working closely with the Americans, Britain had played a leading role in the euphemisticJoint Prioritized Effective List (JPEL). As with Yemen, the JPEL Kill List was not even limited toa war zone it spanned over into Pakistan, which was an ally, not an enemy at war.
The pretext for the Kill List was terrorism. However, the JPEL soon spilled over as British lawenforcement was desperate to use the invasion of Afghanistan to attack the Afghan-Pakistannarcotics trail. Thus, the targets included drug traf ckers, with the "War on Terror" leaking into the"War on Drugs." Britain is a nation with a collective, moral abhorrence for the death penalty evenafter a fair trial, especially for non-violent offenders. It is extraordinary, then, that the JPEL Kill Listallowed for the execution of narcotics traf ckers without a trial at all.
Neither was the Prime Minister the only one to sow deception over the JPEL Kill List. The SeriousOrganised Crime Agency (SOCA) was sued by an Afghan man who lost ve members of hisfamily to an attempted assassination where awed intelligence confused his father-in-law's phonenumber for that of the intended target taking "Sorry you have the wrong number" to a very sadextreme. SOCA appeared in a British court to deny any involvement in the JPEL targeting. ThisReport demonstrates that SOCA's assertions in court were designed to divert attention from the verysigni cant role SOCA (now the NCA) was playing in identifying narcotics traf ckers for inclusionon the JPEL Kill List.
It has been said by an anonymous British serviceman, and it would appear from circumstantialevidence, that other people were included on the Kill List based on perceived criminality linked tomental disorders, such as paedophilia - an extraordinary notion for a country that prides itself onopposing the use of capital punishment.
Indeed, the naming process of the "targets" on the Kill List is extraordinary and would, as theserviceman suggests, horrify the public for the dehumanisation of the process, as well as thepuerile quality of the nomenclature. Some people who are slated for what may be instant death bya Hell re missile are codenamed based on pornography stars, or prophylactics; some are cartooncharacters; some are musicians and actors who might well object to having their names used on aKill List.
Importantly, some codenames re ect different slang for cannabis, suggesting that these individualsare on the list for their narcotics activities. And a series of the names are unique to Britain, suggestingthat these persons were placed on the list by agents of the UK.
The purpose of this Report is not to deliver the last word on Kill Lists, but to demand transparency.Members of the Conservative party rightly criticised the Blair administration for its complicity inthe US torture programmes; if this government now seeks to dragging the UK back to Medievaltimes with an assassination project, it is only right that it should be fully discussed with Parliamentand the public.
- Reprieve, London, April 11, 2016

Reprieve, April 2016 6


On September 7th, 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament that the idea of a "KillList" was a "new departure" for Britain:
[COLOR=rgb(22.400000%, 22.400000%, 22.400000%)]It was, the prime minister conceded in a statement to the House of Commons onSeptember 7th, "a new departure" for Britain. David Cameron said the decision[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(22.400000%, 22.400000%, 22.400000%)]to target and kill Reyaad Khan in Syria, an Islamic State (IS) ghter from Cardiff,[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(22.400000%, 22.400000%, 22.400000%)]had been taken at a meeting of the National Security Council some months earlier.[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(22.400000%, 22.400000%, 22.400000%)]1[/COLOR]
The Government claimed, at the time, that this targeted killing was justi ed on a theory of self-defence.2
That the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) is expected to issue its initial report soon isvery welcome: it is vital that there be transparency in the principles that purportedly guide the UK"Kill List." The recent history of secretive abrogation of long-held principles whether Britain'ssliding back into the abuse of "torture" or turning back the clock to "detention without trial" isdisturbing on many levels, not least of which the fact that politicians have been allowed to takethese retrograde steps without public debate and, seemingly, with no awareness of the hard-learntlessons of History.
However, it would seem clear that the JCHR, along with everyone else, has been misled by the PrimeMinister. The JCHR terms of reference make clear that it believed that drones were only being used"in countries where the UK was involved in an international armed con ict".3 Notwithstanding this,it is undoubtedly true, as Harriet Harman stated, that
[t]he Government's policy on the use of drones for targeted killing has signi cantlychanged, but there is no clarity about what that policy is, what legal frameworkapplies, how decisions are taken in practice and what accountability there is forsuch important decisions about the use of lethal force by the State.4
Yet the Prime Minister had not been forthright with the JCHR, or anyone else. The UK has beendeeply engaged in a "Kill List" for more than a decade. The rst iteration of the Kill List waseuphemistically called the Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL); it is still in use, and at any one timeinvolves more than 600 people who are slated for potential "elimination" in Afghanistan and signi cantly - in Pakistan, where Parliament had certainly not authorised intervention in a war,5 any
1 Britain's Jihadi Kill List, The Economist (Sept. 12, 2015), at [COLOR=rgb(0.000000%, 0.000000%, 100.000000%)][/COLOR].
2 When announcing the UK drone strike in Syria to Parliament, the Prime Minister said: "As part of this coun-ter-terrorism strategy, as I have said before, if there is a direct threat to the British people and we are able to stop it bytaking immediate action, then, as Prime Minister, I will always be prepared to take that action. That is the case whetherthe threat is emanating from Libya, from Syria or from anywhere else." Hansard 7 Sep 2015, Column 25

3 See The Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, announced an inquiryinto the UK Government's policy on the use of drones for targeted killing, October 29, 2015, at
4 Id.
5 There was a branch of the Kill List that later evolved to cover Yemen. This has very recently been the subject

[IMG]file:///page7image30536[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page7image30696[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page7image30856[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page7image31016[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page7image31176[/IMG] Reprieve, April 2016 7


more than they had in Yemen or, at the time of the Reyaad Khan strike, in Syria.
Meanwhile, in the case of an Afghan man whose ve family members were killed in terrible failureof intelligence, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA now rebranded as the NationalCrime Agency, or NCA) assured the British courts that it had no role in the targeting of people onthe JPEL kill list. The evidence in this Report demonstrates that this assurance was simply false.
As a result, the discourse in parliament has been - to date - too narrow. It is important that ourelected MPs and the public understand the way in which the UK had been deeply involved in a"Kill List" long before the populist grandstanding by the Prime Minister on September 7th, 2015.The Prime Minister may have believed that the effort to kill notorious individuals like ReyaadKhan would ensure minimal opposition; but what would the British people think if they knew thatthere were hundreds of people on a "Kill List," spilling over from terrorism to narcotics and othercrimes, based on deeply awed intelligence, resulting in numerous civilian casualties? What wouldthey think if, in the words of some close to what is going on, for every person we target and kill,we create "40 to 60" new enemies, because we killed their innocent children and relatives in theprocess?6
This Report is an effort to ll a gap in that knowledge. Ultimately, though, it is up to the Governmentto be transparent if the UK is to have a "Kill List" of people we wish to assassinate.

[IMG]file:///page8image14344[/IMG] of an exposé by VICE, working closely with Reprieve. See Namir Shabibi & Jack Watling, Britain's Covert War in Ye-men: A VICE News Investigation (April 7, 2016), at [COLOR=rgb(0.000000%, 0.000000%, 100.000000%)][/COLOR]. The UK government has long said that it had nothing to do with drone assassinations in Yemen andthat what happened there was "matter for the Yemeni and US Governments" who they expected to act in accordancewith international law. Namir Shabibi & Jack Watling, Exclusive: How the UK Secretly Helped Direct Lethal US DroneStrikes in Yemen (April 7, 2016), at [COLOR=rgb(0.000000%, 0.000000%, 100.000000%)][/COLOR]. However, this is just not true, and has not been since 2010. The former US Ambassador toYemen, Stephen Seche, stated that even though Yemen was not a "war zone" at the time, "[w]e had a targeting list withnames that we could pursue... It was very useful for both [Britain and America] to sit and help triangulate what we werehearing from our different sources." Id. Sadly, the UK has been replicating in Yemen the very mistakes that had beeninitiated in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region eight years before, and that continue to be made to this day.
6 Namir Shabibi & Jack Watling, Exclusive: How the UK Secretly Helped Direct Lethal US Drone Strikes inYemen (April 7, 2016), at [COLOR=rgb(0.000000%, 0.000000%, 100.000000%)] [/COLOR]("Nabeel Khoury, US deputy chief of mission in Sanaa from 2004 to 2007, wrote in 2013 that: Dronestrikes take out a few bad guys to be sure, but they also kill a large number of innocent civilians. Given Yemen's tribalstructure, the US generates roughly 40 to 60 new enemies for every AQAP operative killed by drones.'").

[IMG]file:///page8image27704[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page8image27864[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page8image28024[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page8image28184[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page8image28344[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page8image28504[/IMG] Reprieve, April 2016 8


Even if one were to believe that the war in Afghanistan continues long after the UK withdrew,7 itis important to recognize that the JPEL "Kill List" not only targets people who are taking no partin warfare, but also spills over into Pakistan, which is a separate country that is an ally of the USand the UK. Be that as it may, even in warfare, disdain for the use of assassination lists goes backmillennia, although the evolution to what was, fty years ago, legal and moral opprobrium tookhundreds of years.
For example, in their dealings with their enemies, the Romans strongly "disdained all such fraudsand deceptions"8 although they did indulge rather vigorously in domestic assassinations of their ownpoliticians. Likewise, in the Middle Ages there were various notorious examples of assassinationlists being used as political policy:
Although the chivalric code exercised a moderating in uence on the conduct ofwar during this period and into the Renaissance, it failed to dampen the practiceof assassination. The city-states of Italy were particularly notorious. Thus ... "theRepublic of Venice, from 1415 to 1525, planned or attempted about two hundredassassinations for purposes of its foreign policy.9
However, Italian excesses were notorious for the very reason that they were deemed immoral.Even 400 years ago some legal commentators believed that civilization had already developedan absolute prohibition against assassination. In 1612, Alberico Gentili classi ed it as nothingmore than murder. He "considered three possible situations: (1) the incitement of subjects to kill asovereign; (2) a secret treacherous attack upon an individual enemy; and (3) an open attack on anunarmed enemy not on the eld of battle. Gentili concluded that each of these was to be condemned.
He argued:
If it is allowed openly or secretly to assail one man in this way, it will also beallowable to do this . . . by falsehood . . . If you allow murder, there are not methodsand no forms of it which you can exclude; therefore murder should never becommitted.10
Indeed, in words that echo in the 21st century, Gentili recognized that assassination was generallypointless as well as being illegal and immoral, since the calculated murder of a leader would in amethe enemy and only result in the substitution of another leader:
Gentili expressly rejected the suggestion that, by killing a single leader, many otherlives might be saved, believing that such an argument ignored considerations of
7 The last British combat troops left Afghanistan in October 2014, with an extraordinary 68% of British peoplethinking that the sacri ces made by the soldiers were "not worthwhile." Last British troops leave Helmand, BBC (Octo-ber 27, 2014), at [COLOR=rgb(0.000000%, 0.000000%, 100.000000%)][/COLOR].
8 Ward Thomas,
Norms and Security: The Case of International Assassination, 25 Int'l Security 105 (2000),
9 Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, at 225, quoted in Ward Thomas, Norms and Security: The Case of In-ternational Assassination, 25 Int'l Security 105 (2000), at A. Gentili, De Jure Belli Libiri Tres, (1612), reprinted in The Classics of International Law 166 (J. Rolfetrans. 1993), at

[IMG]file:///page9image28080[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page9image28240[/IMG] Reprieve, April 2016 9


justice and honour. Moreover, he questioned the ultimate result - that is, a newleader would emerge, with followers all the more in amed by their previous leadersdeath.11
Commentators agree that it was around that time some 400 years ago that the rule againstassassination was cemented into general acceptance:
In the early seventeenth century, attitudes toward assassination began tochange dramatically. Historians and political philosophers began to condemnassassination, even of tyrants and religious enemies. Moreover, this change wasre ected in both the rhetoric and actions of the era's political and military leaders,resulting from a marked decline in the number of assassinations and a distaste forthe act that bordered on contempt.12
By the middle of the Eighteenth Century, the rule against assassination was clear:
The norm against international assassination grew stronger as the violence of thereligious wars receded and by the eighteenth century was rmly entrenched ininternational society. In his 1758 treatise on international law, Emmerich de Vattelwrote: "I give, then, the name of assassination to treacherous murder . .. and suchan attempt, I say, is infamous and execrable, both in him who executes it and in himwho commands it.... The sovereign who makes use of such execrable means shouldbe regarded as an enemy of the human race, and all Nations are called upon, in theinterests of the common safety of mankind, to join forces and unite to punish him.13
Likewise, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the American Republic, wrote to anotherfounder, James Madison in 1789:
"Assassination, poison, perjury... All of these were legitimate principles in the darkages which intervened between ancient and modern civilizations, but exploded andare held in just horror in the eighteenth century."14
Indeed, when the very existence of Britain was threatened by Napoleon, the condemnation ofassassination was already so well-established that the British government responded very rmly tothe suggestion that the Napoleonic wars could be short-circuited by targeting him directly:
In 1806, when British Foreign Secretary Charles Fox was approached with a planto assassinate Napoleon, Fox not only rejected the offer but arrested the would-beassassin and informed the French foreign minister of the plot.15
In the middle of the Nineteenth Century, the US law of war was clear in its prohibition ofassassination:

  1. 11 Id.
  2. 12 Ward Thomas, Norms and Security: The Case of International Assassination, 25 Int'l Security 105 (2000),
13 Emmerich de Vattel,
Le droit des gens, p. 289 (1758), quoted in Ward, op. cit. supra.
14 Stephen F. Knott,
Secret and Sanctioned: Covert Operations and the American Presidency at 171 (New York:Oxford University Press, 1996), quoted in Ward, op. cit. supra.
15 Ward,
op cit. supra.

[IMG]file:///page10image24968[/IMG] Reprieve, April 2016 10


The prohibition on assassination was also included in the law of war that beganto be codi ed in the late 1800s . . . Among the most in uential was the U.S. Army'sLieber Code of 1863, which echoed the prevailing view when it stated: "Civilizednations look with horror upon offers or rewards for the assassination of enemies asrelapses into barbarism."16
It is often the exception that proves the rule just as horror at the My Lai massacre underlined thelegal and moral objections to genocide, so (when it came to light) the highly secretive Phoenixprogram illustrated the folly as well as the immorality of a military kill list. Certainly the Phoenixprogram did not achieve its goals; it further provoked Vietnamese opposition, and the US lost thewar.
Indeed, the secretive instances of assassinations by the CIA in Africa and South America led to thespeci c prohibition against assassination. In November 1975, the Senate Select Committee to studyGovernmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities issued an interim report on allegedassassination attempts in which it found that the United States Government was implicated in veassassinations or attempted assassinations against foreign government leaders since 1960:17
"It is sometimes asserted, for example, that the United States is exceptionallyaverse to assassination because it does not conform to American values of justiceand fairness. This was the position taken in 1976 by the Church Committee, whichinvestigated the involvement of the CIA in assassination plots. The committeefound fault with assassination because it violates moral precepts fundamental toour way of life . .. [and] traditional American notions of fair play.'"18
Whether it has anything to do with "fair play" or not, there are many historical reasons whyassassinations often create consequences adverse to the assassin's goals. Certainly, the CIA effortsto assassinate Fidel Castro helped to cement his domestic popularity and would have justi ed anumber of illiberal security policies. One result of the Church Committee was Executive Order11905, signed by President Ford on February 18, 1976, which [COLOR=rgb(11.000000%, 11.000000%, 11.000000%)]offered an of cial ban on political[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(11.000000%, 11.000000%, 11.000000%)]assassination:[/COLOR]
"[COLOR=rgb(11.000000%, 11.000000%, 11.000000%)]No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire toengage in, political assassination."[/COLOR]
In reaf rming and extending President Ford's order, President Carter removed the limitation topolitical acts. President Carter's Executive Order 12036 in 1978 provided:
"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall
engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."19
In this way, all assassination was banned. The same wording was used by President Reagan in

  1. 16 Zengel, Assassination and the Law of Armed Con ict, p. 622, quoted in Ward, op cit. supra.
  2. 17 See U.S. S. REP. No. 465, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
  3. 18 Ward, op cit. supra.
  4. 19 See Carter Executive Order No. 12036, Ex. Ord. No. 12036, Jan. 24, 1978, 43 F.R. 3674, as amended by Ex.
Ord. No. 12139, May 23, 1979, 44 F.R. 30311, which related to United States foreign intelligence activities, was re-voked by Ex. Ord. No. 12333, Dec. 4, 1981, 46 F.R. 59941: "2-305. Prohibition on Assassination. No person employedby or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

[IMG]file:///page11image28840[/IMG] Reprieve, April 2016 11


Executive order 12333 on December 4, 1981, and this language is in force today.20
The recent history of Britain's approach to assassination is similar to the US. Even in World War2, the UK was involved in just one direct assassination that of Reinhard Heydrich - and theconsensus is that his death "wasn't worth the countless victims that Nazi terror produced over thefollowing weeks":
[COLOR=rgb(19.200000%, 19.200000%, 19.200000%)]Nazi reprisals were savage. In the village of Lidice, thought to be linked to theassassins, 173 men over the age of 16 were killed, every woman was sent to aconcentration camp, every child dispersed, every building levelled.[/COLOR]
Furthermore, however bad Heydrich had been, his successor turned out to be even more savage.21
Thus, while it is sometimes said that terrorism blurs the line between war and peace, law andpractice have evolved to the point where it is illegal to target individuals on a kill-only list even inwar.22 The UK was accused of such a policy in dealing with the IRA, and the policy in operation atthe time was found to have been illegal.23
Regardless, in the case of the JPEL Kill List, the pretext of terrorism cannot be used to target thosewho are better de ned as simple criminals, such as drug traf ckers.
Most worryingly, perhaps, because of the politically expedient de nition of terrorism, nations thatdo not adhere closely to the rule of law may rather rapidly stretch the most de ned "Kill List" totheir own purposes:
[COLOR=rgb(19.200000%, 19.200000%, 19.200000%)]If America can legitimately kill its citizens in Yemen, why can't Russia do the samein London? A few wonder if it already has, pointing to the poisoning of AlexanderLitvinenko.[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(19.200000%, 19.200000%, 19.200000%)]24[/COLOR]
And, waiting in the wings, many other countries would like to have their own Kill Lists.
It transpires that, long before the Prime Minister told parliament of a "new departure" in Britishpolicy involving the killing of Reyaad Khan in Syria, the UK had been deeply involved in developingand executing a Kill List in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a list that remains active.
A. A Brief Introduction To The JPEL List
The iteration of the Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL),25 part of the Edward Snowden les, is from
20 See Reagan [COLOR=rgb(14.100000%, 14.100000%, 13.700000%)]Executive Order 12333--United States intelligence activities Source: The provisions of ExecutiveOrder 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981, appear at 46 FR 59941, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 200: "2.11Prohibition on Assassination.No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in,assassination." [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(14.100000%, 14.100000%, 13.700000%)] cation/executive-order/12333.html[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(14.100000%, 14.100000%, 13.700000%)].[/COLOR]
21 Gordon Corera, BBC Security Correspondent, [COLOR=rgb(9.000000%, 9.000000%, 9.000000%)]Licence to kill: When governments choose to assassinate[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(9.000000%, 9.000000%, 9.000000%)](March 17, 2012), at [/COLOR]
22 Geneva Conventions Protocol I, §40 ("It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten anadversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis").
McCann v. United Kingdom, 21 ECHR 97 GC (1995).
24 Corera,
[COLOR=rgb(9.000000%, 9.000000%, 9.000000%)]Licence to kill, supra[/COLOR].
[COLOR=rgb(0.000000%, 0.000000%, 100.000000%)][/COLOR]

[IMG]file:///page12image27048[/IMG] [IMG]file:///page12image27208[/IMG] Reprieve, April 2016 12


August 2010, and includes 669 targets. Since the list has been in effect since 2002, and is updatedmonthly, it is fair to assume that in its entirety, thousands of individuals have been included on theJPEL Kill List at one time or another.
The JPEL list is still in use today. In September 2015, the New York Times ran an investigationalleging that two European countries Germany and Sweden were "directly participating in so-called kill decisions against insurgents in Afghanistan despite rules prohibiting them from doingso."26 One of cial said: "They were sitting around there giving thumbs up or down, like gladiatorsin a stadium." Sadly, we now know that this is what has been happening for 14 years, and Britishthumbs have frequently been turned down, for death.
The list very clearly shows that its targets are not limited only to those in Afghanistan, but that theyalso include Pakistani targets in Pakistan. Equally important, these Pakistani targets were eitherplaced on the list by the UK (i.e. the Target nominating force) or the UK is the force tasked as leadagency in their targeting, or both.
The JPEL divided people into those who should be used for intelligence, those who should becaptured, those who may be either captured or killed, and those who should only be killed.27 The"Kill Only" tag is further corroborated by "a top [US] military expert":
"the Pentagon has created elaborate formulas to help the military make suchlethal calculations. A top military expert, who declined to be named, spoke of themilitary's system, saying, "There's a whole taxonomy of targets." Some people areapproved for killing on sight."28
The US has always claimed that lists such as JPEL only target the worst of the worst', the socalledHigh-Value Targets (HVTs).29 The JPEL list, however, proves otherwise; rather, the US, the UK andother allies were also going after mid- and low-level members of the Taliban on a large scale, such alarge scale that the list at any time included hundreds of people. Furthermore, amongst those on thelist are alleged drug dealers and paedophiles, included on the pretext that they are associated withthe insurgents.30 (Much more about them below.)
B. How The JPEL Kill List Operates
There are a number of issues that arise from an analysis of the JPEL list involving how people are
listed to be killed, and the unreliable intelligence that forms the basis for any designation.1. JPEL Restrictions To Kill Or Not to Kill?
There are various options on the JPEL menus. Indeed, it is described as a "whole taxonomy oftargets".31 Of the 669, some 127 are subject only to monitoring or intelligence collection.32 Beyond

  1. 26
  2. 27 The document shows the former three categories but does not re ect the latter, which was revealed in a
con dential interview with Reprieve staff. It seems likely that the "Kill Only" tags are redacted due to the fact that sucha designation is clearly illegal.
28 Jane Mayer, The Predator War, The New Yorker (Oct. 26, 2009), at (emphasis supplied).
29 US Military Joint Publication 3-60 (31 Jan. 2013), 2015_06_23_PUB Joint Targeting.pdf, at I-9.

31 Id.
32 These are JPEL ##96, 264, 316, 376, 377, 378, 379, 522-533, 535-542, 544-559, 561, 563-571, 573-575,

[IMG]file:///page13image29392[/IMG] Reprieve, April 2016 13


this, there are 31 people who are subject to capture only, not killing.33 Among these, just two (JPEL217, 623) are subject only to "non lethal action capture only" in other words, lives may be takenin capturing the others. Some are "kill only" a patent violation of International Humanitarian Law(IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL).
Certain JPEL targets were to be kept secret from the Afghans, presumably because of corruptionwithin the authorities.34 However, if people were captured and turned over to the Afghan authorities,there was every chance that they would be tortured.35
Of the 669 targets, 657 were subject to a 90-day rule. In other words, the "authorization" for"executing" whatever the directions are for the individual remained good for 90 days. However,12 are exempt from the 90-day rule altogether.36 With these, the tautological "imminence" of thedanger they pose if killed is extended inde nitely.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

I am on the Kill List. This is what it feels like to be hunted by drones

Friends decline my invitations and I have taken to sleeping outside under the trees, to avoid becoming a magnet of death for my family

[Image: pg-29-drones-ap.jpg]There have been 255 drone strikes on Pakistan since 2004 API am in the strange position of knowing that I am on the Kill List'. I know this because I have been told, and I know because I have been targeted for death over and over again. Four times missiles have been fired at me. I am extraordinarily fortunate to be alive.
I don't want to end up a "Bugsplat" the ugly word that is used for what remains of a human being after being blown up by a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone. More importantly, I don't want my family to become victims, or even to live with the droning engines overhead, knowing that at any moment they could be vaporized.
I am in England this week because I decided that if Westerners wanted to kill me without bothering to come to speak with me first, perhaps I should come to speak to them instead. I'll tell my story so that you can judge for yourselves whether I am the kind of person you want to be murdered.
I am from Waziristan, the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I am one of the leaders of the North Waziristan Peace Committee (NWPC), which is a body of local Maliks (or community leaders) that is devoted to trying to keep the peace in our region. We are sanctioned by the Pakistan government, and our main mission is to try to prevent violence between the local Taliban and the authorities.
In January 2010, I lent my vehicle to my nephew, Salimullah, to drive to Deegan for an oil change and to have one of the tires checked. Rumours had surfaced that drones were targeting particular vehicles, and tracking particular phone signals. The sky was clear and there were drones circling overhead.

Artists in Pakistan target drones with giant posters of child victims

As Salimullah conversed with the mechanic, a second vehicle pulled up next to mine. There were four men inside, just local chromite miners. A missile destroyed both vehicles, killed all four men, and seriously injured Salimullah, who spent the next 31 days in hospital.
Upon reflection, because the drones target the vehicles of people they want to kill in Waziristan, I was worried that they were aiming for me.
The next attack came on 3 September 2010. That day, I was driving a red Toyota Hilux Surf SUV to a Jirga', a community meeting of elders. Another red vehicle, almost identical to mine, was some 40 meters behind. When we reached Khader Khel, a missile blew up the other vehicle, killing all four occupants. I sped away, with flames and debris in my rear view mirror.
Initially I thought the vehicle behind was perhaps being used by militants, and I just happened to be nearby. But I learned later the casualties were four local laborers from the Mada Khel tribe, none of whom had any ties to militant groups. Now it seemed more likely that I was the target.
The third drone strike came on 6 October 2010. My friend Salim Khan invited me to dinner. I used my phone to call Salim to announce my arrival, and just before I got there a missile struck, instantly killing three people, including my cousin, Kaleem Ullah, a married man with children, and a mentally handicapped man. Again, none of the casualties were involved in extremism.
Now I knew for certain it was me they were after.
Five months later, on 27 March 2011, an American missile targeted a Jirga, where local Maliks all friends and associates of mine were working to resolve a local dispute and bring peace. Some 40 civilians died that day, all innocent, and some of them fellow members of the NWPC. I was early to the scene of this horror.
Like others that day, I said some things I regret. I was angry, and I said we would get our revenge. But, in truth, how would we ever do such a thing? Our true frustration was that we the elders of our villages are now powerless to protect our people.
I have been warned that Americans and their allies had me and others from the Peace Committee on their Kill List. I cannot name my sources, as they would find themselves targeted for trying to save my life. But it leaves me in no doubt that I am one of the hunted.
I soon began to park any vehicle far from my destination, to avoid making it a target. My friends began to decline my invitations, afraid that dinner might be interrupted by a missile.
I took to the habit of sleeping under the trees, well above my home, to avoid acting as a magnet of death for my whole family. But one night my youngest son, Hilal (then aged six), followed me out to the mountainside. He said that he, too, feared the droning engines at night. I tried to comfort him. I said that drones wouldn't target children, but Hilal refused to believe me. He said that missiles had often killed children. It was then that I knew that I could not let them go on living like this.
I know the Americans think me an opponent of their drone wars. They are right; I am. Singling out people to assassinate, and killing nine of our innocent children for each person they target, is a crime of unspeakable proportions. Their policy is as foolish as it is criminal, as it radicalises the very people we are trying to calm down.
I am aware that the Americans and their allies think the Peace Committee is a front, and that we are merely creating a safe space for the Pakistan Taliban. To this I say: you are wrong. You have never been to Waziristan, so how would you know?
The mantra that the West should not negotiate with "terrorists" is naive. There has hardly ever been a time when terrorists have been brought back into the fold of society without negotiation. Remember the IRA; once they tried to blow up your prime minister, and now they are in parliament. It is always better to talk than to kill.
I have travelled half way across the world because I want to resolve this dispute the way you teach: by using the law and the courts, not guns and explosives.
Ask me any question you wish, but judge me fairly and please stop terrorizing my wife and children. And take me off that Kill List.

Tracy Riddle Wrote:
I know the Americans think me an opponent of their drone wars. They are right; I am. Singling out people to assassinate, and killing nine of our innocent children for each person they target, is a crime of unspeakable proportions. Their policy is as foolish as it is criminal, as it radicalises the very people we are trying to calm down.

Then many of us, who are also opponents of drone wars, could also at any time be targeted if we travel far overseas. Think that now that the US are using drone domestically, and doubtless the spineless UK and European governments will probably follow suit, as they often do, then will any of us face a future when death suddenly descends from above simply for objecting against perpetual wars or not cowing before the Masters of the Universe?

Fuck them and fuck the boat they threw up in.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Drone Lawyer: Kill a 16 Year-Old, Get a Promotion Magda Hassan 3 2,795 23-06-2014, 10:43 PM
Last Post: Drew Phipps
  Israeli Hit List. Magda Hassan 0 2,077 17-04-2011, 03:53 PM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Police shoot and kill man in another standoff David Guyatt 1 2,716 24-01-2011, 07:52 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Mark Ruffalo on terror advisory list Magda Hassan 2 2,685 28-11-2010, 01:03 PM
Last Post: Jan Klimkowski

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)